homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | Register | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   » Special interest discussion   » Dead Horses   » The Death of Darwinism (Page 42)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  ...  39  40  41  42 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: The Death of Darwinism
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564

 - Posted      Profile for Leorning Cniht   Email Leorning Cniht   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I'm having a hard time thinking somebody flipped a coin. There must be something neutrinos have in common with protons, photons, neutrons, electrons, etc. (things that are indisputably "matter") that anti-neutrinos do not?

Photons aren't "matter". A photon is also an antiphoton, so it doesn't get to play for either team. When we talk about matter, we mean the fermions.

But the protons and neutrons thing is interesting. In the current Standard Model, quarks and leptons don't couple. That means that there's no mechanism to connect the matter-ness of electrons and neutrinos with the matter-ness of up and down quarks, and so in the current SM, we make the arbitrary assertion that electrons are "matter" like up and down quarks (and hence protons and neutrons).

In the unified theory that everyone thinks must exist, leptons and quarks are combined in an irreducible representation of the symmetry group of the unified theory (SU(5) is the smallest possible such symmetry group, although I think the non-observation of proton decay has pretty much ruled out all the SU(5) possibilities.) This combination places quarks and leptons in the same representation, and so ties the matter-ness of quarks and leptons together.

Posts: 4748 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013  |  IP: Logged
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468

 - Posted      Profile for Golden Key   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
LC--

Thanks.


Alan--

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
It does rather depend on what you mean by "matter". Does it, for example, include energy that can transform into particles?

That's what I was thinking of. In that view, aren't matter and energy flip sides of each other? Sort of like energy is matter dancing very fast, and matter is energy meditating? (Don't laugh too hard, please! [Biased] I've been using that comparison for a long time, and it makes sense to me.)

Thanks.

--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?"--Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon"
--"I'm not giving up--and neither should you." --SNL

Posts: 17657 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564

 - Posted      Profile for Leorning Cniht   Email Leorning Cniht   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
That's what I was thinking of. In that view, aren't matter and energy flip sides of each other? Sort of like energy is matter dancing very fast, and matter is energy meditating?

When photons undergo pair production (which they do), they produce a particle and its antiparticle at the same time. So matter-ness is conserved: you start with a photon (no matter) and end with an electron and a positron, say (no net matter - a particle and its antiparticle).

In order to generate a matter-filled universe from a big bang, you need a mechanism that produces matter from energy without producing antimatter at the same time.

Or alternatively, you make equal amounts of matter and antimatter, and then have a mechanism to sweep all the matter over in one direction, and all the antimatter in the other direction, and leave a big gap in the middle.

The former is easier to imagine than the latter.

Posts: 4748 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  ...  39  40  41  42 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
Check out Reform magazine
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
  ship of fools